We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Guest Post - Some Good News from California for Companies with Self-Insured Retentions.
BlogDrug and Device Law

We know that most of our clients, manufacturers of prescription medical products (for purposes of this post), if they have insurance at all, have coverage that is subject to large self-insured retentions (“SIRs”). While the Blog doesn’t usually follow insurance matters, the decision discussed in this guest post is very good news for insureds with SIRs, and appears to be a matter of first impression. Thus, we invited David Weiss, Cristina Shea, and Connor O’Carroll from Reed Smith’s Insurance Recovery Group (who were writing the case up anyway) to provide this guest post. If this case starts a trend, pharmaceutical and medical device insureds (like many other insureds) will be much better off.

In Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ Cal. Rptr.3d ___, 2019 WL 912151 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2019), a California Court of Appeal recently held that an insured’s SIR was considered part of the policy’s underlying limit of liability, and thus only had to be satisfied once. SIRs are similar to deductibles, in that they represent a sum of money that the insured must pay before it is able to access its coverage. The insurers’ rejected position in Deere was that the SIR had to be satisfied again and again to access each layer of excess insurance. This case represents another example of the California appellate courts shooting down insurance companies’ attempts to overreach. Deere is only binding in California, so insurance companies will continue to argue for multiple SIRS in other states to avoid providing the coverage they contracted to provide. Policyholders must always be vigilant.

This particular dispute arose over insurance coverage for several asbestos personal injury claims made against manufacturer Deere & Company (“Deere”) arising from products it manufactured from 1958 through 1986. For that period of time, Deere had coverage in place via a series of first-layer umbrella policies (providing primary coverage) for personal injury claims; above which were several layers of excess insurance that provided additional coverage. In all, 49 policies were at issue representing $200 million in contracted for coverage. Every one of Deere’s its first-layer umbrella polices required it to pay an SIR before the coverage would be available. Deere’s excess policies “followed form” to the first-layer policies, except for the excess policies’ different limits of liability.

The excess insurers argued that “follow form” meant that their higher-layer excess coverage was also conditioned on Deere paying an additional SIR before each level of their excess coverage attached. Thus, the excess insurers sought to treat Deere effectively as an underlying self-insurer or else to treat its SIR for the underlying policies as “insurance” that must be exhausted a second time to invoke coverage, even though Deere had already paid the full SIR to trigger the first-layer policies. At trial, the excess insurers’ position prevailed. The trial court reasoned that, although the SIR was not “limits of liability,” it could be considered a part of the underlying limit of liability such that it necessitated repayment to reach excess coverage.

The appellate court reversed. It found the trial court’s reasoning “enigmatic.” Instead, it held that SIRs are not insurance, but “the antithesis of insurance” because the essence of insurance is shifting risk away from the insured. Further, after rejecting the trial court’s articulation of the issue, the reframed issue became: to determine whether coverage under Deere’s higher-layer excess polices was triggered after the aggregate underlying limits have been satisfied—without Deere paying additional SIRs for all subsequent claims submitted. The appellate court answered affirmatively.

Assum[ing] that a certain first-layer policy provides coverage to Deere in excess of $5,000 (SIR) and up to $200,000, with a $20,000 per occurrence limit; the second layer would kick in once the $200,000 had been expended. Assume further, that numerous claims have been lodged against Deere. For each claim, Deere pays $5,000, with the first layer paying $20,000 per occurrence. After 10 claims, the first layer’s $200,000 aggregate limit would be exhausted, and the aggregate limits of the higher excess policies would be triggered. The issue is whether for the eleventh claim Deere must pay another $5,000 before the higher levels are triggered. The answer to this question is no.

Deere, 2019 WL 912151, at *8.

The appellate court reasoned that when Deere paid its SIR, it triggered coverage for its first-layer polices’ coverage. The triggering event for the excess layers was not Deere’s payment of any SIR, but rather exhaustion of the first-layer policies. The Court of Appeal held that, although the excess policies followed form to the first-layer policies, the excess policies had different limits of liability. The court ruled that SIRs are written in terms of limits of liability, and therefore, they are not encompassed by the follow form provisions in the excess policies. Deere cited analogous precedent from California and elsewhere in reaching this result, but none of these other cases involved excess insurance. Thus, Deere appears to be a matter of first impression as to the type of insurance most commonly held by prescription medical product manufacturers.

In sum, Deere reaffirms that there is no basis in insurance contracts or insurance law to conclude that an insured’s SIR obligations survive the exhaustion of its first-layer of coverage to be incorporated into higher-layer policies. Every company with an SIR and excess insurance stands to benefit from this decision by the Court of Appeal.